The Methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the Sphere of LabourLaw [antikvár]

PART ONE^ 1. General feature of Alternative^ Dispute Resolution (ADR) System 1.1. What is ADR? ADR is the term used to describe a variety of processes, techniques and procedures designed to assist individuals in the resolution of work place disputes. The use of the word "alternative" in the ADR indicates that the specific techniques under consideration provides options different from the more costly, protracted and adversarial methods that traditionally have been used to resolve disputes in organizations. The ADR system provides an informal, voluntary way of resolving work place disputes. This non-traditional approach encourages early resolution to conflicts and allows the parties an opportunity to work through conflicts in a relaxed, non-confrontational environment. Although conflict is considered a negative term, it can provide an opportunity to grow. It can even be a positive experience if it is managed in a positive way. At the ADR, the focus will be on the needs of all parties involved and on the exploration of resolutions that satisfy each participant. While people are encouraged to work out their own solutions, the neutral third party employs learned skills to encourage dialogue and bring about a true understanding of the issues. In each of the ADR options, the third party elicits ideas from the participants to help them reach a mutually agreeable resolution.- ADR offers a variety of types of assistance: conciliation, facilitation and mediation etc. The ADR also offers private counseling. These methods are progressive and offer an alternative atmosphere in which conflicts can be discussed and resolutions reached. All the above mentioned processes include a neutral third party. a) Conciliation. Conciliation works on restoring previously positive relationships. By promoting casual conversation in an informal setting, perhaps away from the workplace, the third party helps the participants better understand their * The research for this paper was undertaken as part of a large project for the Soros Foundation Research Support Scheme. The author wish to express his thanks to the Soros Foundation which helped finance this project. The author indebted to his colleagues at the Aichi Gaktiin University, at the Japan Institute of Labour, at the Faculty of Law of the University of Tokyo and at the Factilty of Law of the Szeged University, Szeged, Hungary in particular Prof. Masahiro Ken Kuwahara, Prof Kazuo Sugeno, Associate Prof. Takashi Araki, Associate Professor Masahiko Iwanuira in .lapan and Prof. László Nagy in Hungary and niy colleagues who helped to complete Ihls work. Many thanks go to Associate Professor Károly Tóth, who carefully and scrupulously edited this paper. - The author is an assistant professor (Ph.D.) at the Department of Labour Law and Social Security in Szeged University, Szeged, Hungaiy. Some experts, among them myself, piefer the term "appropriate" instead of "alternative". The word "appropriate" expresses much more adequately the meaning of the whole system. Stephen A. Ficcci, Associate Director foi' Research Services of Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution, National Institutes of Health, 1997.